I came across this article recently: http://www.soccernewsday.com/usa/a/106/merging-the-american-soccer-confederations-pt-2-solutions and although I don't agree with everything, there are some ideas that have merit. This one specifically got me thinking: I'm under no illusions that something like this would happen, just want to discuss the merits of such a realignment. To go along with the above confederation realignment, I would consider a FIFA World Cup consisting of 48 teams. Here is one way it could shape up: Current Format * 8 groups consisting of 4 teams each for the group stage * Each team plays 3 games in group stage * Top two teams from each group advance to elimination rounds * Total group stage games played = 8 groups * 6 games per group = 48 games Proposed Format * 16 groups consisting of 3 teams for the group stage * Each team plays 2 games in the group stage * Top two teams from each group advance to elimination rounds * Total group stage games played = 16 groups * 3 games per group = 48 games Proposed allocation per (new) confederation Going with the allocation percentage average for the last two WC plus Brazil 2014, I get this: * UEFA: 19 spots * CAF: 8 spots * Asia: 8 spots * Americas: 12 spots * Host country: automatic entrance Alongside such a realignment, I see great potential for a Copa America played by 16 or 24 countries from the new confederation. Anyway just some thoughts that would probably never come to fruition but are nice to think about anyways.
The separation is to help smaller teams make it to the world cup doing this would just allow at least 8 out of 10 teams from south america to make it to the world cup and North America would still only get 4 and run the risk of having a team like US or Mexico not even make it on a bad year. Same with Oceania the only reason Australia left was to give every one else a chance wich New zealand took full advantage of right away if they join not of those teams including New Zealand will probably even have a chance especially with the growing of the teams in Asia.
Plus 48 teams in the world cup would only make the first week or two of competition with to many games of very little interest. I'd like that idea if there were teams not making it they should but not very often is a big team left out
I like that the World Cup has 32 teams. CONCACAF has 40 members but only 35 are independent and can attempt World Cup Qualifying.
If the US or Mexico cannot grab one of 12 spots in the Americas then that would mean they are not good enough. I don't agree though with your assertion that 8 out of 10 South American teams would qualify ahead of the US or Mexico. Other than Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay/Chile, the US and specially Mexico can stand toe to toe against the rest of the competition. Don't let the fact that because football is arguably the 5th major sport in the USA that the USA cannot compete against countries that have more of a tradition. That's a fallacy of association and composition.
I dont mean that the 8 south americans will make it instead of US or Mexico i mean that bc there are 12 spots it will only help South America have more teams in the world cup bc North america does not havy anyone other then US Mexico and Maybe Costa Rica on a good year that can beat most South American teams
There was opposition to expand from 24 to 32 teams in 1998, also. Eventually people came around to it. A few thoughts went into my proposal: * I think that in this era of globalization, as the world shrinks, it is logical to merge. Maybe it won't happen, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint, as well as from a financial one. * I reference my personal experience, but I can see where many others could feel this way as well: there are two dynamics in play when I watch a WC: 1) I want to see the traditional powers represented, it conveys a sense of tradition and/or continuity, if you will; 2) at the same time, it is undeniable that people are drawn to the matches that feature one of those traditional powers and a minion (will the minion knock the superpower out?) - there is great intrigue. * The price to be paid for realignment would probably be to increase the field. UEFA currently has 13 spots, and I am pretty certain that they would demand more spots as opposed to giving up spots to balance the confederations. * Lastly, I suggest that in exchange for increasing the field, reduce the number of matches per group. This way, with teams playing only 2 games instead of 4, every game gains more urgency to advance to the knockout stages. I also like that under this proposal there are only 8 extra matches added to the tournament (the 8 matches from the first knockout round).
